Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Patterns of Resource Giving: A Literature Review
Methods
Data and Analytic Sample
Missing Data
Latent Class Analysis
Results
Discussion
Implications for Future Research and Practice
References
All Topics
Psychology

Patterns of Giving to Family and Giving to Others in Midlife

Profile image of Teresa CooneyTeresa Cooney

Journal of Family and Economic Issues

https://doi.org/10.1007/S10834-020-09680-1
visibility

…

description

15 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Guided by life course and resource perspectives, this study investigated patterns of middle-aged adults' giving of time and money within and outside their immediate family. National data from Midlife in the United States II (MIDUS II) were analyzed for 759 middle-aged adults. Latent class analysis provided strong evidence for a 4-class model of giving patterns. The four types were (a) General Benefactors (30%), (b) Time Benefactors (28%), (c) Financial Philanthropists (26%), and (d) Uninvolved (16%), revealing that the majority of midlife adults give time and/or money within and outside their immediate family while fewer give money outside their family only or not at all. Middle-aged adults' contextual factors, resource availability and demands, and perceptions of family relationships and non-family roles predicted giving pattern membership. The heterogeneous giving patterns of midlife adults have implications for research and practice.

Related papers

The Act of Giving: A Systematic Review of Nonfamilial Intergenerational Interaction
Helen Skouteris

Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 2014

Research fostering intergenerational interaction often promotes attitude change toward the other, social connectedness, service activities for younger adults, and older adults feeling purpose and valued. Research articles reporting projects designed using nonfamilial, reciprocal intergenerational interaction were systematically reviewed. Thirteen papers published between January 1990 and February 2012 in peer-reviewed, English-language publications met inclusion criteria. The review concluded that reciprocal giving needs to be structured into the methodology of future intergenerational studies for the full developmental opportunity of identity formation in younger adults, generativity in older adults, and psychosocial benefits for both generations to be realized. KEYWORDS intergenerational, psychosocial benefits, review Editors' note: This systematic review of research papers reporting projects using nonfamilial reciprocal intergenerational interaction provides some new insights about the acts of giving. In this context, this manuscript simultaneously is a selected review of intergenerational literature and provides some new information to advance the field.

View PDFchevron_right
Virtue is its own reward?: support giving in the family and social isolation in middle and old age
Pearl Dykstra

2004

Gerontologists have emphasised that older adults are not only recipients of support but also important support providers. Using data from the first wave of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study of 727 middle-generation adults aged 45 to 79 years, we examined the associations between loneliness and giving support up, across and down family lineages. Overall, the findings were consistent more with an altruism perspective, that giving brings rewards, than with an exchange perspective, which emphasises the costs of giving support. The results showed an inverse relationship between the number of generations supported and loneliness, and that those engaged in balanced exchanges with family members in three generations (parents, siblings and children) were generally the least lonely. As regards the direction of support giving, the findings showed that the association between giving support and loneliness was insignificant if the support was for parents, negative for support to siblings, and positive for support to children. Imbalanced support exchanges were differentially associated with loneliness, and depended on the type of family relationship involved. Non-reciprocated support made parents more vulnerable to loneliness, whereas non-reciprocated giving in sibling ties was associated with low levels of loneliness. Imbalanced support giving in relationships with parents was not associated with loneliness.

View PDFchevron_right
Prosocial Behavior in Late Life
Eva Kahana, Elizabeth Midlarsky

While older adults are frequently portrayed as incompetent, dependent, and a drain on societal resources, theory and research demonstrate that the elderly engage in diverse prosocial behaviors, but that much of the prosocial capability of the elderly lies dormant. In this chapter, we present evidence in support of a model recognizing the powerful contributions made by the elderly to their families and communities. This contributory model of successful aging suggests that prosocial behavior by older adults is motivated by empathetic concern, religious obligation, and a sense of duty. Prosocial behavior is presented as a normative facet of old age that is conceived as a direct expression of the motivation to help future generations and society. The impacts of prosocial behavior on physical health, mental health, and mortality are considered. Because of the cross-disciplinary nature of this inquiry, we propose directions for future research intended to produce an integrative understanding at the micro, meso, and macro levels.

View PDFchevron_right
Virtue is its own reward? Support-giving in the family and loneliness in middle and old age
Pearl Dykstra

Ageing & Society, 2008

Gerontologists have emphasised that older adults are not only recipients of support but also important support providers. Using data from the first wave of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study of 727 middle-generation adults aged 45 to 79 years, we examined the associations between loneliness and giving support up, across and down family lineages. Overall, the findings were consistent more with an altruism perspective, that giving brings rewards, than with an exchange perspective, which emphasises the costs of giving support. The results showed an inverse relationship between the number of generations supported and loneliness, and that those engaged in balanced exchanges with family members in three generations (parents, siblings and children) were generally the least lonely. As regards the direction of support giving, the findings showed that the association between giving support and loneliness was insignificant if the support was for parents, negative for support to siblings, and positive for support to children. Imbalanced support exchanges were differentially associated with loneliness, and depended on the type of family relationship involved. Non-reciprocated support made parents more vulnerable to loneliness, whereas non-reciprocated giving in sibling ties was associated with low levels of loneliness. Imbalanced support giving in relationships with parents was not associated with loneliness.

View PDFchevron_right
Personal and Neighborhood Resources, Future Time Perspective, and Social Relations in Middle and Older Adulthood
Tim Windsor

2012

View PDFchevron_right
Transitions in Giving and Receiving Intergenerational Financial Support in Middle and Old Age
Noah Lewin-epstein

Social Indicators Research, 2020

The growing population of elderly households, and their diverse economic circumstances, underscores the need to study the patterns of financial assistance in advanced ages. The proposition presented conceptualizes intergenerational financial support as contingent and dynamic. Data are drawn from Wave I to Wave VI of SHARE-Europe. The empirical examination models changes over time in financial support. The study's findings show that steady giving and receiving is quite exceptional. Most respondents did not engage in giving or receiving financial support at any two time points during the 12 year period covered by our study. Aging, changing living arrangements, and especially economic circumstances affect the likelihood of shifting between giving and not giving as well as receiving or not receiving financial assistance. Comparisons across four European welfare regimes reveal that the propensity to refrain from giving any financial support is salient mainly in Mediterranean and Eastern European states, whereas the likelihood of not receiving sustained financial support from offspring is salient mainly in states characterized by the Continental and the Mediterranean welfare regimes. There appears to be no reciprocity with respect to financial support in Social Democratic and Continental welfare regimes, but we do find evidence of such reciprocity in the Mediterranean and Eastern European regimes. Nonetheless, patterns of intergenerational exchanges of financial and social support are manifested in all welfare regimes.

View PDFchevron_right
Financial support by older adults to family members: a configurational perspective
Myriam Girardin

Journal of Demographic Economics

Most research on financial inter vivos transfers from older parents to their family members is focused on the giver–receiver dyad, usually between an older parent and an adult child. This study aimed to investigate older adults' financial support beyond this level of intergenerational dyads using an egocentric network perspective (i.e., the configurational approach). Data were from a sample of 2,991 older adults (aged 65 and older) from the Vivre/Leben/Vivere study, a large survey addressing family life and health conditions of older people in Switzerland. We used Wald tests and regression analyses to identify how financial transfers are related to family network properties in later life. Findings showed that older parents' propensity to provide financial support is associated with the density of practical help exchanges within the family (mainly for men) and with the position (mainly for women) and the role they play within their family configuration.

View PDFchevron_right
Beyond dependency, autonomy, and exchange: Prosocial behavior in late-life adaptation
Elizabeth Midlarsky

Social Justice Research, 1987

View PDFchevron_right
Intergenerational transfers in the family: What motivates giving?
Martin Kohli

2003

View PDFchevron_right
Theories and their Empirical Support in the Study of Intergenerational Family Relationships in Adulthood
Pearl Dykstra

A Content-Based Approach, 2014

View PDFchevron_right

References (64)

  1. Bengtson, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 469- 504). New York: Plenum Press. https ://doi.org/10.1007/978-0- 387-85764 -0_19
  2. Bjorklund, B. R. (2016). The journey of adulthood (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  3. Brooks, A. C. (2008). A nation of givers. In The American, 2(2). Wash- ington, D.C.: The American Enterprise Institute Burr, J. A., Choi, N., & Mutchier, J. E. (2005). Caregiving and vol- unteering: Are private and public helping behaviors linked? The Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 60(5), 247-256. https ://doi.org/10.1093/geron b/60.5.S247.
  4. Cao, H. (2006). Time and financial transfers within and beyond the family. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27, 375-400. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1083 4-006-9013-z.
  5. Choi, N., Burr, J. A., Mutchler, J. E., & Caro, F. G. (2007). Formal and informal volunteer activity and spousal caregiving among older adults. Research on Aging, 29, 99-124. https ://doi. org/10.1177/01640 27506 29675 9.
  6. Choi, N. G., & Chou, R. J.-A. (2010). Time and money volunteering among older adults: The relationship between past and current volunteering and correlates of change and stability. Ageing & Society, 30, 559-581. https ://doi.org/10.1017/S0144 686X0 99906 4X.
  7. Clark, M., & Arnold, J. (2008). The nature, prevalence, and cor- relates of generativity among men in middle career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 473-484. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2008.09.002.
  8. Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical meth- ods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261-1293. https ://doi. org/10.1086/23063 8.
  9. Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2014). The baby boom cohort in the United States: 2012-2060. Current population reports. U.S Department of Commerce. Retrieved from: https ://www.censu s.gov/prod/2014p ubs/p25-1141.pdf.
  10. Connidis, I. A. (2014). Age relations and family ties over the life course: Spanning the macro-micro divide. Research in Human Development, 11, 291-308. https ://doi.org/10.1080/15427 609.2014.96705 0.
  11. Connidis, I. A., & Barnett, A. E. (2019). Family ties & aging (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  12. Cooney, T. M., & Dykstra, P. A. (2011). Family obligations and support behavior: A United States-Netherlands comparison. Ageing & Society, 31(6), 1026-1050. https ://doi.org/10.1017/S0144 686X1 00013 39. Corporation for National & Community Service. (2006). Volunteer growth in America: A review of trends since 1974. Washing- ton, DC. Retrieved from: https ://www.natio nalse rvice .gov/ pdf/06_1203_volun teer_growt h.pdf
  13. Deb, P., Okten, C., & Osili, U. O. (2010). Giving to family versus giv- ing to the community within and across generations. Journal of Population Economics, 23, 1091-1115. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ s0014 8-008-0206-7.
  14. Drollinger, T. (2010). A theoretical examination of giving and vol- unteering utilizing resource exchange theory. Journal of Non- profit & Public Sector Marketing, 22, 55-66. https ://doi. org/10.1080/10495 14090 31904 16.
  15. Dziak, J. J., Lanza, S. T., & Tan, X. (2014). Effect size, statistical power, and sample size requirements for the bootstrap likelihood ratio test on latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 534-552. https ://doi.org/10.1080/10705 511.2014.91981 9.
  16. Eggebeen, D. J., & Davey, A. (1998). Do safety nets work? The role of anticipated help in times of need. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(4), 939-950. https ://doi.org/10.2307/35363 6.
  17. Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteer- ing and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar- terly. https ://doi.org/10.1177/08997 64010 38594 9.
  18. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1995). The life course paradigm: Social change and individual development. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. Lischer (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 101-139). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
  19. Elder, G. H., Jr., & Pellerin, L.A. (1998). Linking history and human lives. In J. Z. Giele, & G. H. Elder, Jr. (Eds.), Methods of life course research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (pp. 264-294). Retrieved from https ://bibli o.csusm .edu/sites /defau lt/ files /reser ves/ch1_handb ook_of_the_life_cours e_p.3-19.pdf
  20. Fingerman, K. L., Miller, L., Birditt, K., & Zarit, S. (2009). Giving to the good and the needy: Parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1220-1233. https ://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00665 .x.
  21. Fingerman, K. L., Pitzer, L. M., Chan, W., Birditt, K., Franks, M. M., & Zarit, S. (2011). Who gets what and why? Help middle-aged adults provide to parents and grown children. Journals of Ger- ontology: Social Sciences, 66B, 87-98. https ://doi.org/10.1093/ geron b/gbq00 9.
  22. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2010). On a new schedule: Transitions to adult- hood and family change. The Future of Children, 20, 67-87.
  23. Grundy, E., & Henretta, J. C. (2006). Between elderly parents and adult children: A new look at the intergenerational care provided by the 'sandwich generation'. Ageing & Society, 26(5), 707-722. https :// doi.org/10.1017/S0144 686X0 60049 34.
  24. Haider, S. J., & McGarry, K. (2006). Recent trends in resource sharing among the poor. In R. Blank, S. Danziger, & R. Schoeni (Eds.), Working and poor: How economic and policy changes are affect- ing low-wage workers (pp. 205-232). New York: Russell Sage Publishers.
  25. Hank, K., & Stuck, S. (2008). Volunteer work, informal help, and care among the 50+ in Europe: Further evidence for 'linked' pro- ductive activities at older ages. Social Science Research, 38(4), 1280-1291.
  26. Hart, H. M., McAdams, D. P., Hirsch, B. J., & Bauer, J. J. (2001). Generativity and social involvement among African American and White adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 208-230. https ://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2318.
  27. Hirst, M. (2005). Carer distress: A prospective, population-based study. Social Science & Medicine, 61(3), 697-708. https ://doi. org/10.1016/j.socsc imed.2005.01.001.
  28. Hook, J. L. (2004). Reconsidering the division of household labor: Incorporating volunteer work and informal support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 98(6), 1428-1458.
  29. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [ICPSR]. (1994/95). Midlife in the United States: A national study of health and well-being, 1994/95. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
  30. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [ICPSR]. (2004/06). Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2), 2004-2006: Descriptions of MIDUS samples. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
  31. Jeszeck, C. A. (2015). Retirement security: Most households approach- ing retirement have low savings. GAO-15-419. Retrieved from: https ://www.gao.gov/asset s/680/67015 3.pdf
  32. Johnson, D. R., & Young, R. (2011). Toward best practices in analyzing datasets with missing data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 926-945. https ://doi.org/10 .1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00861 .x1.
  33. Kim, P., & Bradach, J. (2012). "Why more nonprofits are getting big- ger." Stanford social innovation review. Retrieved from https :// ssir.org/artic les/entry /why_more_nonpr ofits _are_getti ng_bigge r.
  34. Kohli, M., & Hank, K. (2009). The social connectedness of older Europeans: Patterns, dynamics, and contexts. Journal of Euro- pean Social Policy, 19, 327-340. https ://doi.org/10.1177/13505 06809 34151 4.
  35. Lancee, B., & Radl, J. (2014). Volunteering over the life course. Social Forces, 93(2), 833-862. https ://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou09 0.
  36. LeBaron, A. B. (2019). The socialization of financial giving: A multi- generational exploration. Journal of Family & Economics Issues, 40, 633-646. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1083 4-019-09629 -z.
  37. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2016). A tradition of giving: New research on giving and volunteering within families. Indi- anapolis, IN: Indiana University Lilly School of Philanthropy. Retrieved from: https ://schol arwor ks.iupui .edu/bitst ream/handl e/1805/9599/A%20tra ditio n%20of%20giv ing_Final .pdf?seque nce=1&isAll owed=y Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2019). Changes to the Giving Landscape. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Lilly School of Philanthropy. Retrieved from: https ://schol arwor ks.iupui .edu/bitst ream/handl e/1805/21217 /vangu ard-chari table 19102 2.pdf?seque nce=1&isAll owed=y
  38. List, J. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. Journal of Eco- nomic Perspectives, 25, 157-180. https ://doi.org/10.1257/ jep.25.2.157.
  39. Macmillan, R., & Copher, R. (2005). Families in the life course: Inter- dependency of roles, role configurations, and pathways. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 858-879. https ://doi.org/10.111 1/j.1741-3737.2005.00180 .x.
  40. Macmillian, R., & Eliason, S. R. (2003). Characterizing the life course as role configurations and pathways. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 529- 554). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  41. Margolis, R., & Wright, L. (2017). Older adults with three gen- erations of kin: Prevalence, correlates, and transfers. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 72, 1067-1072. https ://doi. org/10.1093/geron b/gbv15 8.
  42. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). User's guide. Statis- tical analysis with latent variables, 6. Retrieved from https :// www.statm odel.com/downl oad/users guide /Mplus %20Use rs%20 Gui de%20v6.pdf
  43. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535-569.
  44. Oberski, D. L. (2015). Mixture models: Latent profile and latent class analysis. Mathematics. Retrieved from https ://daob.nl/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/2015/06/obers ki-LCA.pdf.
  45. Oesterle, S., Johnson, M. K., & Mortimer, J. T. (2004). Volunteerism during the transition to adulthood: A life course perspective. Social Forces, 82(3), 1123-1149.
  46. Pew Research Center. (2013). The sandwich generation: Rising financial burdens for middle-aged Americans. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https ://www.pewso cialt rends .org/2013/01/30/the-sandw ich-gener ation /.
  47. Pillemer, K., & Glasgow, N. (2000). Social integration and aging: Background and trends. In K. Pillemer, P. Moen, E. Wethington, & N. Glasgow (Eds.), Social integration in the second half of life (pp. 19-47). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
  48. Pillemer, K., Moen, P., Wethington, E., & Glasgow, N. (2000). Social integration in the second half of life. Baltimore, MD: John Hop- kins University Press.
  49. Preston, S. H., Heuveline, P., & Guillot, M. (2001). Demography: Measuring and modeling population processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  50. Reinhart, R. J. (2017). Religious giving down, other charity hold- ing steady. Wellbeing. Retrieved from https ://news.gallu p.com/ poll/22437 8/relig ious-givin g-down-chari ty-holdi ng-stead y.aspx.
  51. Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life-course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  52. Schoeni, R. (1980s). New evidence on the economic progress of foreign-born men in the 1970s and 1980s. Journal of Human Resources, 32(4), 683-740.
  53. Settersten, R. A., Jr. (2003). Age structuring and the rhythm of the life course. Handbook of the Life Course. https ://doi.org/10.1007/978- 0-306-48247 -2_4.
  54. Silverstein, M., Parrott, T. M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1995). Factors that predispose middle-aged sons and daughters to provide social sup- port to older parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 465-476.
  55. Son, J., & Wilson, J. (2011). Generativity and volunteering. Sociological Forum, 26, 644-667. https ://doi.org/10.111 1/j.1573-7861.2011.01266 .x.
  56. Szinovacz, M. E., & Davey, A. (2002). Retirement and marital deci- sion making: Effects on retirement satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 387-398. https ://doi.org/10.111 1/j.0022-2445.2005.00123 .x.
  57. United Nations. (2017). World population ageing. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from: https ://www.un.org/en/devel opmen t/ desa/popul ation /publi catio ns/pdf/agein g/WPA20 17_Highl ights .pdf Taniguchi, H. (2012). The determinants of formal and informal volun- teering: Evidence from the American Time Use Survey. Interna- tional Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 920-939. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1126 6-011-9236-y.
  58. Van Gaaleen, R. I., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: A latent class analysis. Jour- nal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 947-960. https ://doi.org/10.1 111/j.1741-3737.2006.00306 .x.
  59. Wenner, J. R., & Randall, B. A. (2016). Predictors of prosocial behav- ior: Differences in middle aged and older adults. Personality & Individual Differences, 101, 322-326. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2016.05.367.
  60. Wiemers, E. E., & Bianchi, S. M. (2015). Competing demands from aging parents and adult children in two cohorts of American women. Population and Development Review, 41, 127-146. https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00029 .x.
  61. Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. II-Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3, 217-245. https ://doi. org/10.1332/20408 0512X 64937 9.
  62. Zelezna, L. (2017). Care-giving to grandchildren and elderly parents: Role conflict or family solidarity? Ageing & Society, 38, 1-21. https ://doi.org/10.1017/S0144 686X1 60014 34. Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
  63. Amanda E. Barnett Ph.D. Associate Professor.
  64. Teresa M. Cooney Ph.D. Professor and Department Chair. Adam Shapiro Ph.D. Professor of Sociology.

Related papers

Who Gets What and Why? Help Middle-Aged Adults Provide to Parents and Grown Children
Karen Fingerman

The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 2011

View PDFchevron_right
Gender differences in the exchange of social support with friends, neighbors, and co-workers at midlife
Carolyn Liebler

Social Science Research, 2002

People have always relied on their friends, neighbors, and coworkers as well as family members for social support, but support from outside the family may be increasingly important as high divorce rates persist and high levels of residential mobility continue to take people away from their relatives. Past research suggests that women give and receive more emotional support than do men, but little research has explored gender differences in overall patterns of exchanging social support. We use latent class analysis to show that there are four major patterns of social support exchange for both men and women. Three of these patterns-high exchange, emotional support exchange, and low exchange-are very similar for men and women. However, almost half of men can be characterized as low exchangers while almost half of women can be characterized as emotional support exchangers. Around 10 percent of both men and women are high exchangers. Multivariate analyses show that among both men and women, the unmarried are the most likely to be high exchangers after controlling for other factors that might possibly be related to the exchange of social support.

View PDFchevron_right
“My nest is full:” Intergenerational relationships at midlife
Heidi Igarashi

Journal of Aging Studies, 2013

Incorporating a life course perspective, this qualitative study used focus groups to explore the experiences of midlife adults who were simultaneously providing support to emerging adult children and aging parents. Results indicated that adults situated in middle generations held beliefs that endorsed family-based responsibility to both younger and older members. Parents gladly supported children despite their longer transition to adulthood. Often unanticipated but accepted, provisions of care to aging parents were experienced with ambivalence-a joy and a burden. The transition of their parents to greater dependence helped participants gain insights into the terrain of late life and encouraged reflections about the intersection of aging, independence, and family responsibility. Participants expressed intentions to preserve their own independence and spare children of caregiving burdens through self-directed actions. Implications focused on negotiations of family relationships around issues of independence and family responsibilities as a way to reduce intergenerational ambivalence.

View PDFchevron_right
Running head: MY NEST IS FULL “My Nest is Full: ” Intergenerational Relationships at Midlife
Deborah Coehlo

2013

Incorporating a life course perspective, this qualitative study used focus groups to explore the experiences of midlife adults who were simultaneously providing support to emerging adult children and aging parents. Results indicated that adults situated in middle generations held beliefs that endorsed family-based responsibility to both younger and older members. Parents gladly supported children despite their longer transition to adulthood. Often unanticipated but accepted, provisions of care to aging parents were experienced with ambivalence – a joy and a burden. The transition of their parents to greater dependence helped participants gain insights into the terrain of late life and encouraged reflections about the intersection of aging, independence, and family responsibility. Participants expressed intentions to preserve their own independence and spare children of caregiving burdens through self-directed actions. Implications focused on negotiations of family relationships arou...

View PDFchevron_right
Complex Households and the Distribution of Multiple Resources in Later Life: Findings From a National Survey
Linda Waite

Research on aging, 2015

The availability of social and financial resources has profound implications for health and well-being in later life. Older adults often share resources with others who live with them, sometimes in households including relatives or friends. We examine differences in social support, social connections, money, and the household environment across types of living arrangements, develop hypotheses from two theoretical perspectives, one focusing on obligations toward kin, and one focused on social exchange within households, and test them using data from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project. We find that availability of resources is not consistently associated with the presence of grandchildren and other young relatives, but often differs with presence of other adults. These findings suggest that a single type of resource tells us little about the distribution of the resources of older adults, and call on us to examine multiple resources simultaneously.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved